Vidav wrote:Why would they abandon informed babies?Ibanez wrote:
Most civilizations abandoned the informed and mal-formed babies.
My comment was obviously in jest.
Sent from my iPhone
You ^ Vidav
are quickly becoming my favorite poster

Vidav wrote:Why would they abandon informed babies?Ibanez wrote:
Most civilizations abandoned the informed and mal-formed babies.
My comment was obviously in jest.
Sent from my iPhone

Not sure if serious.Chizzang wrote:Vidav wrote:
Why would they abandon informed babies?
You ^ Vidav
are quickly becoming my favorite poster

Close minded bigot.ASUG8 wrote:Didn't read everything, but it's eugenics and it's wrong.

Informed babies become informed voters...and we don't need any of that sh*t around here.Vidav wrote:Why would they abandon informed babies?Ibanez wrote:
Most civilizations abandoned the informed and mal-formed babies.
My comment was obviously in jest.
Sent from my iPhone

Cluck U wrote:Informed babies become informed voters...and we don't need any of that sh*t around here.Vidav wrote:
Why would they abandon informed babies?

Touche.Cluck U wrote:Informed babies become informed voters...and we don't need any of that sh*t around here.Vidav wrote:
Why would they abandon informed babies?

The principal is the same, many autistic children will live with their parents and never be able to make decisions all by them selves. It really depends on the individual and where they fall on the spectrum and how they do whether they will be on their own. I do understand the difference between autism and downs, I just wish we knew why the hell it was happening at the rate it is and how to help them better.∞∞∞ wrote: The question isn't about the autistic though; it's about the mentally retarded. From wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Tre ... _treatment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Arguments for the treatment
The parents state that they sought such treatment for the best interests of their daughter, namely, to enable them to personally continue constant care for her at home; to maximize her inclusion in family activities; to avoid the cramps and discomfort associated with menstruation; and to avoid the discomfort from large breasts (which runs in Ashley's family) while lying down or strapped in the chest area while in her wheelchair. Furthermore, they cited additional side benefits: to reduce the risk of bedsores; to prevent breast cancer and fibrocystic growth (both of which have occurred in her family); to prevent pregnancy; and to prevent appendicitis, which occurs in 5% of the population and which would be difficult to diagnose in Ashley as she would be unable to communicate the symptoms. They also believe that without secondary sexual characteristics, Ashley will be less vulnerable to sexual abuse by future caregivers when her parents will no longer be able to care for her.
In an article published in June 2009 on Growth Attenuation, two pediatric endocrinologist and two bioethicists concluded as follows:
Our analysis suggests that growth attenuation is an innovative and sufficiently safe therapy that offers the possibility of an improved quality of life for nonambulatory children with profound cognitive disability and their families. Pediatricians and other care providers should include discussion of these options as part of anticipatory guidance around the age of 3 years so that, if elected, potential clinically meaningful benefits of growth-attenuation therapy can be realized.
The two bioethicists from the previous article also published an article in January 2010 cataloging and countering the criticisms that targeted the Ashley Treatment, and concluded as follows:
The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief review of the [Ashley Treatment] case and the issues it raised, then address 25 distinct substantive arguments that have been proposed as reasons that Ashley’s treatment might be unethical. We conclude that while some important concerns have been raised, the weight of these concerns is not sufficient to consider the interventions used in Ashley’s case to be contrary to her best interests, nor are they sufficient to preclude similar use of these interventions in the future for carefully selected patients who might also benefit from them.